Nearly two years after Steve Jarman was found guilty of manslaughter in the shooting death of his girlfriend, the local court’s ruling was reversed by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

A new trial for voluntary manslaughter should now take place, the state’s court ruled in an October judgement.

However, the state Attorney General's office filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court this week.

"We will most likely be on hold until they make a decision to review the case and middle court’s ruling," said Olin Baker, the attorney representing Jarman.

Jarman, 54, of Dickson, was originally found guilty of voluntary manslaughter in November of 2016 in the death of Shelley Heath. He was sentenced to five years in the state Department of Corrections.

The state appeals court ruled that the Dickson County Circuit Court committed a “reversible error in admitting evidence of a prior criminal offense for which the defendant was acquitted and evidence of the defendant’s prior threats against the victim’s sister.”

The Court of Criminal Appeals judgement continued: “Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.”

The opinion of the appeals court, with presiding Judge John Williams, stated that the trial for Heath’s death “essentially turned into another trial on (Jarman’s) alleged assault, for which he had already been acquitted.”

In 2013, Jarman was on trial for an alleged assault of Heath. Jarman was acquitted in that trial. He was charged with choking and hitting Heath, who signed a document stating the actions occurred but later recanted, according to court documents.

2015 murder trial

In 2015, Jarman was charged with first degree premeditated murder in Heath’s death. That April, just after midnight, Jarman called 911 and stated, “I’ve been asleep. My girlfriend got up and — oh my God — she pulled a gun at me and next thing I know the gun went off.”

Dickson County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Steven Rychlik responded to the home on Maple Valley and said he found Jarman and the victim on the living room floor in front of a recliner.

Rychlik secured a pistol located on the floor beneath a side table near the recliner and immediately began CPR on the victim until EMS arrived. The victim was never responsive.

While at the scene, Jarman told Rychlik that he and the victim had been at a friend’s house that evening and that the victim had become intoxicated. When they returned home, he went to bed. He awoke when he heard two gunshots, ran into the living room, and noticed that the victim had shot herself. He pulled her onto the floor, began performing CPR, and called 911. He said that the victim had suffered from severe depression and had previously attempted suicide.

Jarman said that he and Heath had been drinking moonshine and Heath had been drinking it “like ice water.”

Another deputy who responded and was questioned, stated that Jarman was distraught at the scene and appeared concerned about the victim. A third deputy testified that Jarman did not appear to have concern about the victim “per se” but “concern for what was going on.”

A month later, Detective Jeff Lovell interviewed Jarman whose story slightly changed during this questioning. Jarman said he was was asleep in the bedroom when he was awoken by the victim’s making noise in the living room. Noticing his gun was missing from the bedroom, he went into the living room and saw the victim holding the gun.

He stated that the hammer was already cocked and that the victim “kinda like point[ed] it at [him].”

He said the victim turned the gun toward herself with “both hands on the handle.” He reached to grab the gun, putting his hands over her hands. He tried to “jerk it back,” and it went off. He was “pretty sure” his fingers were not on the trigger, and he believed the victim had one or both of her thumbs on the trigger.

Jarman said he did not tell the truth at the scene of the shooting because he was afraid the officers would think they had been fighting. He clarified that he did not think the victim was truly pointing the gun at him but that she was moving it to point it at herself.

He stated that “there’s no way in the world” he would ever shoot or hurt the victim and that he was screaming at her, “What are you doing?”

During the 2016 murder trial, Lovell said he did not think it would have been possible for the victim to shoot herself with the trajectory determined by experts if she had been holding the gun in her right hand. Deputy Mark Bausell, who was also present during Jarman’s interview, testified that he did not believe the victim’s gunshot wound could have been self-inflicted.

Dr. Thomas Deering, a forensic pathologist, determined the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the chest. He agreed that the location of the wound was consistent with homicide but could not conclude whether the manner of death was homicide or suicide.

The report showed that the victim’s blood alcohol content was .24 percent, which was triple the legal limit to drive in Tennessee. The victim’s blood also tested positive for benzodiazepine, an anti-anxiety medication.

Heath’s brother, Paul Heath, testified that he had lived with Jarman and Heath for two weeks just prior to the shooting. He said Jarman and his sister had argued several times but that they “always made up.” He also acknowledged that both Jarman and Heath had tempers.

During Jarman’s May 12 statement to police, he said he attempted to cash the victim’s insurance check to pay for her funeral expenses. He said the check never was cashed and that he may have thrown it away by mistake.

After deliberating, the jury returned a guilty verdict of the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter for Jarman who was later sentenced to serve five years in incarceration.

Appeals court summary

During the 2016 trial, Paul Heath testified in detail regarding the alleged assault, and a deputy testified regarding his observations of the victim following the assault and regarding the victim’s statement, which she later recanted.

The appeals court stated that “more than a mere inference of (Jarman’s) prior crime was admitted.”

The appeals court continued, stating that “This essentially turned into another trial on the Defendant’s alleged assault, for which he had already been acquitted. Based on the vast amount of highly prejudicial evidence concerning the alleged assault that was admitted and the circumstantial evidence presented at trial, we determine that the error more probably than not affected the outcome of the trial.”